morici will discuss his article this week on the cost of a college degree. and national journal senior correspondent james kitfield of this cover story on the obama administration's counterterrorism strategy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: that chinese activists at the center of a diplomatic standoff between washington and beijing now says he wants to leave china with his family. state department officials say they have spoken twice to chen guangcheng, saying he and his wife have changed in their hearts and want to depart the country. this as the secretary of state continues her trade and economic talks in beijing. russia's defense minister morning talks between moscow and washington on the missile defense plan in europe are close to a dead end. they have not succeeded in overcoming a disagreement over a

system washington says is aimed at deflecting potential iranian threats. it is thursday, may 3. the president is at the white house today. congress is at recess. we want to begin with a conversation on u.s. foreign policy. what is america's influence in the world in light of developments this week. we welcome our listeners on c- span radio, xm channel 119. we will begin with the developing story in china. "the washington post" -- this front-page story. and the front page of "usa today" --

some other foreign policy stories we want to react to. from inside "the new york times , judy,", the story from kabul.

and when it comes to foreign policy, of course, military and diplomatic issues are key. this is a story from inside politico that we want to bring your attention to. gearing up for the defense spending bill that will happen when congress returns. the story points out committee members will be haggling over billions of dollars and could decide the fate of major weapons programs as well as initiatives by the u.s. military. so, our question this morning is america's influence in the world. what is it, following the president's trip to afghanistan, the debate between mitt romney

and newt gingrich. michael is joining us from new york city, independent line. caller: good morning, steve. you look great today. the meeting with chinese leaders, both economic and military, at cologne university, and they stated they would not buy any aircraft carriers or any ships -- they would constantly trade on using what reagan wanted, which was based-based anti missions -- anti-missile systems. they felt there was a commercial spin off for one -- $1 or $2 trillion the next three years. so, i think obama should reverse his stand unclosing that. host: this story, the front page of "the new york times." the chinese dissidents, joined by embassy officials, departing

the embassy in beijing. behind him is the u.s. ambassador locke walking with chen guangcheng. of the story is he wants to leave the country. ron is on the phone from los angeles on the larger question of america's influence on the world. caller: i think it is not as big as it could be. we need to be the one big superpower in the world -- all of these rogue nations, we need to take care of them. we need to bring democracy to these people. these people need the american way of life. i heard the other day obama was withdrawing troops in afghanistan at 2014. absolutely ridiculous. we have made an obligation to stay there. we need to stay there and establish a democracy. host: again, the headline in " usa today" --

and, ron, you were talking about the president and afghanistan. this from "the washington post" -- a different opinion from inside "the washington times," this editorial --

that editorial from "washington times." jesse is on the phone from louisiana. america's influence on the world. you are calling on the democrats' line. caller: president obama -- extending an olive branch, where they had issues with america. talking soft and carrying a big stick. what he did, taking out the evil regime in egypt and libya -- and bin laden, and made the world a safer place. we are not concerned about the danger because he took them out. most of the dangers around the

world. so, thank god for this president who does what he says and means what he says. and the leaders -- leaders and terrorists oliver of the world, from somalia and those ships -- all are around the world, from somalia and those ships, they are not able to carry it out. even our standing president who made this country a lot safer than one -- what it was the last eight years of the former regime. i thank god for him and i hope he will be there for many years more, at least four. host: we are also checking out your tweets, where you can send us an e-mail --

and this is another story that continues to get attention, may be below the radar screen. it is featured inside "the washington times." sudanese conflict creates land of the lost. the. the story this morning from "the washington times" pointing out a massive humanitarian crisis.

america's influence in the world is our question. mark is on the phone from philadelphia. caller: before i address the actual question, a quick comment about the chinese dissident. when it comes to commercial and business interests versus human rights, we see what happens here. let's face it, human rights take a backseat to commercial interests. this guy was turned over to the chinese to keep our commercial interests in china. but as far as our subjects, i think the american influence -- you know, we talk about human rights and then we let it go with the saudis, and then we slam-dunk >> and syria. i just think it is selective. host: what would you change? what do you think this or any

administration needs to do regarding the inconsistency you just referred to? caller: i don't think there is much you can do, steve, in all reality. i understand the contradictions and it is just the way it is and the way it is going to be. host: thanks for the call from philadelphia. this is the story about a chinese dissident, which is dominating many of the headlines. mr. chen guangcheng was told that he would be sent to his own promise -- province is the the embassy and he. for -- feared for his family, from an interview reprinted inside "the wall street journal." if you are just joining us, we are talking about foreign policy and the larger question of america's role in the world.

something the president outlined in the state of the union address this past january, where he touched on where we are in the world and what we need to be doing. this is more from a january speech before a joint session of congress. [video clip] >> american leadership can be felt across the globe. our oldest alliances in europe and asia are stronger than ever. our ties to the americas are deeper. our ironclad commitment -- and i mean ironclads it is rare that a security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. [applause] we made it clear that america is a pacific power, and a new beginning in burma has led to new hope. from the coalition's we have built to secure nuclear

materials, to the missions we have led against hunger and disease, and the blows we build our enemies, the enduring power of our moral example, america is back. anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that america is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn't know what they're talking about. [applause] that's not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. that's not how people feel from tokyo to berlin, from cape town to rio, where opinions of america are higher than they did in years. yes, the world is changing. no, we can't control every event. but america remains the one

indispensable nation in world affairs, and as long as i am president, i intend to keep it that way. host: the question is, are we indispensable? this is from peter baker this morning in "the new york times." a photo of the president tuesday in afghanistan. and a new york times/cbs news poll, saying president obama has neutralized the republican advantage in national security. the republicans had a more measured reaction to the president's trip to afghanistan. on our twitter page --

what is america's role in the world? what is america's influence in the world? ryan is on the phone from houston. good morning to you. democrats' line. go ahead, please. caller: i just think the president is showing a good example of respecting other countries and other people in other countries. he is doing a fine job. i would like to say that i wish -- was running for governor in louisiana. host: joanne from san diego is next. republican line. caller: i would refer viewers to president obama's speech in cairo, june 9, 2009, when i think he kind of outlines that he wants to lessen america's influence in the world. we don't have the right, at that time, he said, to import democracy, not the right to stop

the nation from becoming a nuclear power. this is very different from his 2009 speech. two examples. our missile defense, which is so crucial -- we spend years getting poland and the czech republic to help with this and in one fell swoop, president obama abandon that program. then we saw when we disengage from iraq. know what kind of diplomats to negotiate, but they would not even give immunity to our troops, that is ridiculous. i think he should -- we should at least have had a base or something left in iraq. i think this election is an election of destiny. we can revitalize our country like we did in 1980, but it has the be a huge republican victory across the board. host: are you still with us? let me read you just one tweet, from john mcconnell --

what is your reaction to that? caller: definitely, he is going to care about human rights. nobody knows better -- mormons, and catholics -- you look in the past and you look at the religious discrimination, look at the obamacare discrimination against religious employers. he knows what human rights are all about. he is going to protect human rights. this idea that corporations don't care about people -- look at how we helped lech walensa in poland. it was not just governments who helped overturn communism, it was also the business community. host: thank you for the call. up early in san diego. if you are just tuning in or joining online -- and the question is also post -- posted on our facebook page, and that is "what is america's influence

in the world?" john is on the phone from massachusetts, the line for independents. caller: our influence around the world is bought by as. we by countries and tell them what to do. like in iraq, as the woman was just saying, we've still got troops over there, we still have an embassy that has 5000 people over there. and that government over there is just a front and we are running everything. until people wake up and find out that america is a terrorist country, not these other countries. thank you very much. host: another point of view from our twitter page. ej dionne in "the washington post" as this. -- has this.

inside "the washington post." max is on the phone from rhode island. you are on the air. caller: hello? host: good morning. please, go ahead. caller: am i on now? all right, so, i was thinking -- you know how the nation have a lot of debt and stuff like that?

what if we stopped -- like, all these donations -- you know kony 2012 and a lot of people donating a lot of the money, and people donating on commercials, buying pointless things, a lot of money. what if everybody takes all the time to donate to our national debt? host: thanks for the call. karl rove inside "the wall street journal." next is ed from green bay, wisconsin. good morning. go ahead.

caller: i think the american influence on other countries -- i think if you took the american dollar out of the equation, quit sending our money overseas, i think you would see an immediate turnaround of how of the country turns the back of america. it's all about money. host: thanks for the call. on our twitter page, a lot of people waiting in. -- weighing in. well, mitt romney calling about this, the 21st century, being the american century. he spoke about this at the citadel and south carolina. this speech available on our website and you can check it out any time that c-span.org. [video clip] >> this century must be an american century. [applause]

in an american century, america has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. in an american century, america leads the free world, and the free world leaves the entire world. god did not create this country to be a nation of dollars. america is not destined to be one of several equally balanced gold -- global powers. america must lead the world, or someone else will. without american leadership, without clarity of american purpose and a result, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be one of the first casualties. let me make this very clear -- as president of the united

states, i will devote myself to american century, and i will never, never apologized for americans. some way -- some may ask, why america, why should america be any different from scores of other countries around the globe? i believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world. not exceptional as the president has derisively said, as the british think great britain is exceptional or the greece greece is exceptional. and barack obama's graman mistaken view, there is nothing unique about the united states. host: that speech, by the way, on our website at c-span.org, and our site for politics c- span.org/campaign2012. viewer has this point. next is charles from atlanta.

caller: and i on? good morning, assistant. people need to take a look back and see what president obama has done a lot of this country. he has done a whole lot for this country. he got bin laden. he got health care through. he stopped the slide of the dollar -- he stopped it from going down. it is time for people to take a look and see what this man has done. host: here is what some of you are sitting on the facebook page.

you can join the conversation on our facebook page and our twitter page. tom is on the phone. tampa, florida. independent line. caller: i agree with a one person before he said we should be an influence just by example. i disagree with the most recent things you just showed. the one caller, who talked about having an even greater influence. keepmply can't afford to doing that. we cannot afford to extend our influence militarily, especially across the world. bottom-line, i think, is after we withdraw from the middle east, if we ever do, the end result will be the same as if we had never gone in the first place. a very high cost. so, by all -- by all means, influenced by example but not by trying to build nations. it is simply not our place to do it. host: what would be the alternative?

what would be your recommendation? caller: for what? solving problems in the middle east? host: when you say nation- building. caller: we are trying to extend our values, which certainly are respectful and noteworthy values, but we have to remember we are the new kids on the block. a country for a little over 200 years, and the reasons we have been going in have been established for thousands of years and we are simply not just going to change all that history by the military or any other kind of influence. host: thank you for the call from tampa, florida. one of our viewers semi -- framing the debate on the growing national debt and deficit. secretary of state hillary clinton is sitting down with cbs on the middle east and what influence we have not only within syria but also within

that part of the world. here's part of that conversation [video clip] >> why doesn't the u.s. lead and take the one half step further and say that i al-assad's time is done, he has to go? >> i think we have been clear about what we have said about his loss of legitimacy. i think we were one of the first. but it is important it is not just the american voice. we want to make sure those voices are coming from around the world. but what we really need to do to put oppression -- pressure on a side is to sanction the oil and gas industry of what to see europe tidwell steps on that direction and we want to see china because india and china have large energy investments inside syria. host: that the view has been posted on the interview website. richard on the phone from sebring, florida. we will actually go to rick >> from canton, ohio.

caller: somebody just tweeted you and talked about derivatives and wars. what is interesting is i can take two states in this country and attach them to derivatives and wars. the first state is texas. the last four wars have been started by texans, the largest military base in the world is and taxes -- texas, i think to lyndon b. thousand troops in texas, exxon is in texas, the bush family, karl rove is in texas. derivatives, you go to wall street -- $800 trillion of derivatives. what is amazing, at one time oil was the seven republicans and over in the east coast you have the east coast democrats. when clinton deregulated the

derivatives to the extent he did, it allowed the east coast, which jews and the banking system to attach to the southern republicans. so now you have the east coast democrats with the derivatives and you have the south with their oil and their war -- so he -- and also, these regions, the south, texas, has its own propaganda outlets. host: i think i will stop you there. back to our facebook page. this is from robert darnell --

roger on our twitter page -- those of you just to begin or listening and c-span radio, i'm question is, what is america's influence around the world. with the president back from afghanistan and foreign-policy as part of the discussion this election year. charles on the phone, republican line, from south carolina. caller: hello. look, i hope you'll give me enough time that you gave that guy who was really on the south -- i am and 7 republican. -- i am southern republican. people have problems with that for one way or another. he went off on a bunch of crap that made no sense. host: your point is? caller: what i called about is i

am proud -- i and pulling like crazy for mitt romney. the mainstream media, of the shadow government that barack obama has there with all the hollywood writers like maggots in a madhouse, coming up with olinsky tactics. one of the rules for radicals is to belittle and besmirch people. anybody who has been listening to this, please, go to your computers and looked up rules for radicals and you will see exactly what barack obama is all about. now, wait a minute -- but romney, and ann romney, if they can get elected, we got a chance. if this man goes back in, america's days are done. we are going to be communists

and we are going to be probably muslim communists, ok? host: thank you for the call. this handle is boringfileclerk, a regular tweeter -- let's hear from the democrat from columbia, south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things i would like to say -- can you hear me? host: go ahead, please. caller: america it is afraid of terrorism. now, obama, the president, he takes out one of the key figures in terrorism and he goes back to iraq -- i mean, afghanistan -- and he said thank you for saving america, and these people -- the

worst thing in the world. they are complaining about him is using air force one, but he signed a treaty while he was there. why don't these people stop complaining and be grateful that the troops that he congratulated are saving the country, and they are complaining? now they say mitt romney would make a great president, he will balance the budget. he has a quarter of a billion dollars hiding in other countries and he can brag about that? host: thanks for the call. one of our viewers saying -- a couple of political notes. speculation continuing on a vice-presidential running mate for mr. romney. the front page of the "richmond times-dispatch." 1 mention was virginia governor

bob mcdonnell -- also mentioned, and jeb bush, chris christie, bobby jindal, tim pawlenty, rob portman, condoleezza rice, marco rubio, and paul ryan. it governor mcdonnell campaigning in portsmouth, virginia fought. also inside "usa today" is a piece with perspective from bob beckel looking at potential when inmates for mitt romney. a look ahead at the democratic convention which will take place in charlotte, north carolina. this is a story inside "the wall street journal." democrats are struggling to raise money for the national convention in part because they barred corporations and lobbyists from contributing.

and a veteran of capitol hill, one of the longest serving members of congress ever and serving the longest of the house of representatives announcing he is running for a 29th full term. of course, that is john dingell, democrat from michigan, longest serving member in the house. that story inside the electionline from "usa today." blackwell, oklahoma. america's influence in the world. what is it, jason? jason, are you with us? we will try one more time. let's go to marion in

charleston, south carolina. caller: good morning to you. i think our influence is real good in the world. the problem is, you know, it is just back home that we are our worst enemies. the president went over to afghanistan to congratulate the troops and celebrate killing bin laden, who came over here and tell all of our people and we are sitting around here trying to find fault with our president. how do you think the rest of the world -- that is why these guys -- it seems like we don't even like ourselves. we do something real positive and we turn around and make a negative into it. like fox news, for example, they can make jesus looks -- look bad -- and you think the rest of the world is not watching. that president from iran, every time he comes here he talks about the same news fox news of

talking about because the cartooning in. i like the drones -- i am a vietnam vet, i have three sons, one was blown up in a humvee -- he is doing much better now, thank the lord. all ofon't believe in that walking through and getting blown up by these mines and all that. we've got drones. let's do it in a more sophisticated manner. they don't like that. we spend all this money building this -- and then they blow it up. come on. host: thanks for the call. one of our followers did say -- and other political note -- we showed the speech earlier on c- span and it is on our website, the departure of newt gingrich begin official with his remarks in the virginia.

in the headline in "the washington times." valid to stay involved in america's critical conversation, newt gingrich closing the curtain on his up and down presidential bid. next is stephen from gainesville, florida. caller: before i answer your question, i think it is hilarious, these people calling from the left and right one to talk about barack obama or mitt romney when the question has nothing to do with them. it has to do with our influence in the world. and so, i believe look -- feel it is waning and the reason is i am a realist. the world does not forgive we caused the economic meltdown. the world does not forget that we trekked the u.k. and other countries into going to work under false premises. and the world doesn't -- i mean, the world does not pay attention

to our politics the way that we -- we are like the prom queen in the world. everybody is looking at us -- it is not like that. the world is paying attention to how we are talking to china, how they are manipulating their money whenever we are sitting here continuing to print money over and over again. i feel we are special because of the freedoms we have, of course, and we are a great nation -- the light coming out of the darkness, whatever, but the truth is we are still going to be, you know, looked upon as the same everybody else is looked upon. when we hold ourselves as something that should not be judged the same as someone else should be, we are living in a la la land, until we write these wrongs and judge ourselves of the same way we would judge it china or the way we would judge

greece, we are just going to continue to be living in who knows where. host: thank you from the call. from our twitter page, larry has this point of view -- also, we are getting a lot of e- mails as well. when from a viewer from georgia -- and this from sue from new jersey -- and bob says this e-mail from venice, florida.

next is bob from baker, louisiana. good morning to you. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. how're you? host: 5, thank you. caller: as far as into the woods, we have none. countries -- as far as our influence, we have none. countries watch us. they know what is happening here. our economy is on the decline. the country is split. one side is fighting the other side. and they see that. and we just don't have any influence. what we need to do is go back

and look at obama's past, what he thought about the military. what he thought about going into iraq. all of these things, they look at. they watch us all the time. and this little whisper deal with russia, they know that we don't have any influence. we have none. and as long as we have that kind of leadership, we won't have any influence. host: what's the solution? caller: the solution is change administrations. more communists in the white house, in the administration, and when i was growing up, communism was a bad

word. people went to jail for being communists. but not now. it's been warm -- the norm. you cannot believe me but just look at all of the people in the administration, and how they think and how they are trying to change our country. it's ridiculous. not say onea will thing against obama. nothing. and they never vetted him before the election. host: one other point of view -- we want to turn our attention to another story that is getting a fair amount of coverage of this thursday morning, inside "

renault your post" and "the washington post" and this from "chicago sun-times" -- we will feature this on book tv. on the phone is the deputy political white house editor who is following this story as well for politico. i gerberry much for being with us. guest: that -- that is very much being with us. white is this generating so much attention? guest: this is the first glimpse of a book that has been highly anticipated for a long time now, by the author who wrote a book about bill clinton that was very influenced all -- influential in the reshaping what people thought clinton did before he was present. clinton portrayed his life as a series of accidents that led him toward the presidency, but what

was traced in this book is this was always a man who was full of ambition and hearing it themselves towards higher things. it seems like he has taken a similar approach to what happened with president obama. this is a guy who did not just wander the earth until he got to each stage of his life, but was really determined to to get to levels of achievement that would lead him maybe not to the presidency but something like it. and that is what we are starting to see in this book. and what we have in this first section is some memories of two women that he dated in his first years out of college. host: and there is a photograph "vanity fair" reprinted about a young barack obama, the background. you can see the plaza hotel.

but in the book he talks about the relationships he had what some of these women. one, genevieve cook, who is white, and a diary she had taken during the months of their relationship. guest: very striking, to have this many diary entries describe in detail the young of barack obama and their relationship, the way he was, is a treasure trove that i don't think most people would expect existed about a president. we have this insight into the 22- 23-year old barack obama and how he was. he was not just any person like any other 22-year-old. it uc in what she writes about him that he is struggling about what -- he is struggling with his place in the world, his racial identity, with his work and looking for meaning and looking for it level of philosophy, intellectual discourse, that he didn't feel

he was getting in what was going on otherwise. a striking passage where he, in a love letter in to the first of the girlfriends that he writes about, takes apart a passage from t.s. eliot, "wastelands," and has an erudite discussion. i spoke to a number that english professors and ask what do you think of it -- looks like an intent of being high-minded and the lot of scholars told me they thought it actually was high- minded and they were impressed he had done this. so, we have this portrait of a guy, this whole section of his life is not something people know much about. host: this is how it plays out in "the new york post" and it is also inside "the new york

times." this is the president of united states and also a new book by david marinus -- anything new in what "vanity fair) has published? guest: pete is a man carefully controlling his image. he has written two autobiographies -- one before he was elected and one after. still, there is a lot we don't know about him and it is amazing we can have a guy who is president of the united states for four years and all the national stage for eight years and written two autobiographies and even short excerpt and

dignity fell -- vanity fair tells us a whole thing we did not know about it. a window to his personality that we did not have before -- sold i do not think this will change any major way what we think of barack obama but what it does is it illuminates the impression most people have of the president at this point. host: one of the stories that came out yesterday -- it was a composite figure, the president in his book referred to as a new your girlfriend, was not just one. he obviously had a couple but he pointed out that it was a composite figure. guest: the president mentions when it published a book that there were some composite figures used. marinus was able to pinpoint that among the composites is a

girlfriend that obama describes, that he had gone to a play with and a woman had a negative reaction to it and that woman was, in part, one of the new york girlfriends -- host: thanks for spending a couple of minutes with us. again, and know we will feature david marinus on book tv on june 17 and you can check out the information on the website. we also have excerpts published from the book as part of our book tv offerings. this is "washington journal" for thursday, may 3. coming up, we will talk to peter morici, a longtime economist at the university of maryland as we discussed loans and student debt and what college students would be facing as soon as they

received a diploma. and also a discussion coming up next on the british phone hacking investigation -- jon swaine and is michael downing -- and melanie's loan will be here to talk about the situation and what it means for fox in the u.s. and what it means for the vote for murdoch empire. "washington journal" continues in just a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> bin laden was a strategically relevant communicator with the various and disparate outfit into a certain extent i have to

confess i had insider knowledge. in uniform i work for cent, and afghanistan and i work on the problem in iraq. we know bin laden personally was involved in communications to corral al-zawahiri, we knew he was making it out reached earlier on to al shabab in somalia and we knew he was involved in these types of things. as a consequence, no surprise talking about the ideologies, bin laden was relevant. >> how has counterterrorism and national security changed since the death of vince, bin laden? analysts and other intelligence community members continue to weigh in. see what they have to say all mind on the c-span video library, all archived and searchable. >> spend a weekend in oklahoma city with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, check- in on literary life with book tv on c-span2, including governor

mary fallon across a must read political books, oklahoma university president and former senator on his letter to america, and rare books from galileo, converted his, and others -- copernicus, and others. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span3 -- toward oklahoma city bombing memorial, plus, and look into african-american life in 1920 that the oklahoma and native american artifacts, from the special collections of the oklahoma history centered once a month, c-span's local contact the appeals explore the history of literary life of cities across america -- this weekend from oklahoma city, c-span2 and c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to turn to the british phone hacking scandal, melanie sloan is citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, and we have jon

swaine, washington correspondent for "the daily telegraph." jon swaine, let's begin with you, because this is an investigation we have been covered for c-span but it has been under the radar for most of the mainstream media. bring us up to speed. what has been happening. this inquiry, what have they concluded? guest: they have not concluded yet. they are looking into two main it areas. first of all, wrongdoing by tabloids owned by rupert murdoch, the phone hacking and the bribery of public officials. and secondly, a wider inquiry into the ethics and standards of the british media. this was what prompted by the phone hacking scandal which has been going on for seven years -- several years. host: it has culminated in many respects to questions posed to james murder, the son of will for murdoch, and rupert murdoch himself. guest: they have given evidence. they were summoned to by

levinson, who has subpoena power. host: we want to talk to melanie sloan about impact here in the u.s.. [video clip] >> we hired a law firm to look into this and aid our cooperation with the police. after the charging you -- not the arrest -- that was it, they were close to the files. i can't believe they would have done that and they were unhappy with our cooperation.

>> that is not evidence we have had at all, mr. murdoch. it demonstrates the law firm you mention produced just one document, which you know, to not represent the position at all. one way or another, news international being obstructive. does it not shock you? >> it shocks me deeply, and i was not aware of it and i have not heard of it until he said that. host: this was done with support and guidance of the house of commons but it was a separate, independent inquiry. guest: a separate inquiry into this whole saga. the inquiry that concluded this week was a culture select committee which was looking into this for about two or three years now. it was they who concluded the board murdoch was not a fit person to run a global media

company. that inquiry has been running alongside levenson. also inquiries about whether mr. murdoch or by his son and company was able to run the big satellite company in britain, also taking into account the findings of the committee. host: let's turn to the u.s. your group has sent a letter to the sec commissioner saying we 27 broadcast operations and the u.s. and their licenses should be revoked -- your group has sent a letter to the fcc. guest: under american law that fcc has a standard that only people of good moral character to hold broadcast licenses, and if you are found to have poor character you can have a license revoked, and in that definition the fcc -- if people lack

candor, they could have license revoked. mr. murdoch and his son, they found they both liked candor. recently it was found the testimony of robert byrd taught was barely credit -- rupert murdoch was barely credible and that is something that should be taken into consideration when considering these broadcast licenses. host: in your letter you said this -- in terms of how far this has spread. guest: the actions of news corp. and britain were of little impact in america because of the law that control american-owned companies. news corp. owns british subsidiary's but controlled by u.s. law. as melanie's group says, things they do in britain reflect on the parent company in new york, but therefore may reflect on

their ability to hold u.s. licenses. guest: they may have violated the foreign corrupt practices act. news corp. officials may have brought officials and great britain and if they did in fact private official that would be an american company paying to bribe foreign officials. that is one clear set of violations. and in fact, the 11 senate inquiry in great britain received a statement from rupert murdoch admitting he was cooperating with the department of justice on such an inquiry. there is also a separate inquiry, as i understand, whether there was phone hacking in the united states. there was an allegation made last summer that a u.s. police officer had been offered money to obtain phone records of victims of 9/11. an inquiry now of whether there was hacking of 9/11 victims and

some of their families have come forward and said they believe their phones were tapped. that is another inquiry going on. i do think if that turns out to be true, that will be a huge scandal here in america. host: let's talk >> let's talk about the fox operations. we're talking about the television broadcast operation, not the fooks news channel. is there any evidence, any proof that rupert murdoch or his operation did anything illegal in the u.s. in terms of these 27 fox broadcast outlets? guest: no, but there's no allegation they have done anything improper or illegal. but by owning the licenses, the moral character standard applies to him. all the evidence that's been piling up suggest suggests that he doesn't have the character to retain the licenses. guest: how big of a story has this been in great britain?

it's been huge. what we thought as a narrow incident of phones being hacked, prince william being hacked, has now come to the door of the prime minister. his spokesman was former editor, he had to resign. he's facing criminal charges. one of david cameron's top allies have been embarrassed in the last few weeks by the inquiries and it doesn't get much bigger than that. host: in terms of this overall investigation, also an economic issue because this came at the same time that the murdoch empire was looking to take big sky, a profitable satellite operation, murdoch and his company have a stake in it. that of course as dissipated. guest: exactly. the newspaper angle was an embarrassment but the satellite

television side was far more damaging. that's what they care about more, that's more profitable. and so, you know, they've really been damaged commercially by this. host: how unusual is it that he would appear before the house of commons on a monday at the request of the lay labor party leader? guest: it's very unusual. he was furious in fact. he was glowing bright red with fury that he was being dragged in front to answer for his ministry jeremy hunt. he was hoping to do some campaigning for some local elections happening today in in great britain. host: let's take you to the floor of the british house of commons. prime minister david cameron.

>> i am and always will be a fierce defender of the freedom of the press in this country. it is one of the central pillars of our democracy. but the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close for decades. the inquirery which this government is set up gives parliament and politicians of all parties the opportunity to get this right for the future. already we have introduced transparency about the meetings we had with the media. everyone can see which editors i meet with, whether publicly or privately. let me just say this. like other party leaders in our country, for decades, i've tried to convince media outlets to support the policies of my party and now my government. but let me be clear, there was no there never has been any grand bargain between the conservative party and james or rupert murdoch. indeed, look for one moment at the number of meetings that tony blair and gordon brown had with rupert murdoch when they were

prime minister! blair seven, brown 13, me four! the idea, four! the idea that there was some agreement that in return for their support we would somehow allow this merger to go through is simply not true. >> mr. speaker, the reason why it was essential for the prime minister to come to the house today is that the culture secretary is in clear breach of the code. the prime minister stands by and does nothing. he asks why this matters. because we immediate people that will stand up for the families, not the rich and powerful. host: let's go back to this story and how it has touched the royal family, british government, party leaders, business leaders and one of the wealthiest individuals in europe, rupert murdoch. guest: exactly.

what started as a tabloid story has now exposed really the closeness of the top of government with rupert murdoch and his entourage really. and we've heard extraordinary stories of how david cameron, the prime minister, rode horses with rupert murdoch's top british executive rebecca brooks. he was flown on private jets by rupert murdoch's son-in-law. this whole thing has shown how prime ministers, dating back to margaret thatcher, have bent over backwards to court his influence and his support. host: the fox news channel here in the u.s., both broadcast and cable, have they been covering this story? guest: they have not been covering this story very heavily. probably no surprise they have taken much of a pass on this as has the "wall street journal," a murdoch paper. "the new york times" have covered this a great deal, and they have worked with "the

guardian." but this story has not been front and center in america and i think because so many americans view it as a british scandal. i believe it does have huge implications for america because rupert murdoch is an important presence here in america, with 27 fox broadcast licenses, and fox is of course a very pervasive and significant influence in american politics. the other thing i think is important to note that news corporation has many friends in congress, which may be part of the reason it's not, we're not hearing more from congress about this. they spread their political donations around widely, not just to republicans but democrats as well. i think making members of congress sit back and not want to take action unless they're going to be forced to. host: and to be fair, has fox been any different than cnn or nbc or abc or cbs? >> guest: it's hard to quantify, but i do think fox has done less coverage. one thing i think we are seeing

now is it is finally some effort on american politicians to get involved, as senator jay rockefeller, the chairman of the senate commerce committee sent a letter to the inquirery asking they share information as to whether or not there has been wrong doing at home. host: our guests here, jon swain, and melanie sloan. of course we are focusing on the phone hacking situation in great britain. our phone lines are open. you can join us on twitter or facebook or send us an email. david is on the phone, he's been waiting from north carolina. the republican line, good

morning to you dave. caller: yes, sir, i do believe there's a problem with the way they work together up there in the media in washington. but when you try to stifle somebody for their, you know, if their ugly or whatever you're saying, well i believe, i'm not a felon, but i believe they should have the right to vote too. you can't stifle somebody whose right to broadcast an opinion. host: more of a comment rather than a question. we'll go to jeff who's on the phone from massachusetts. good morning, jeff. caller: good morning, how you doing? thanks to c-span, it's a great channel. i'd like to know how politicality motivated this is. i mean, you know, cbs does so much damage. they report stories wrong. nbc's the same thing. i never once heard the ethics committee try to bring any charges against them. and yet, you know, all the sudden it's just targeting for

fox. and i think any guest that you bring up there should tell what their personal political beliefs are before they can allow to come up there and slam one channel or whatever they're trying to do here. another thing, this is britain. this has nothing to do with america. i believe what happens in britain stays there. they're trying to pull fox's news license over something that happened in another country and basically i don't think that's right. i just want to know how politically motivated this. because i just see campaign all over it. i'm sorry. i don't see this being a number one story of the decade in our country. i really don't. host: jeff thanks, let's take your point. how politically motivated do you think this is. melanie sloan let me ask how far news corps spread in the u.s., the u.k. and everywhere else around the world. but first, the politics behind it.

guest: certainly the labour party has taken advantage of this. and david cameron is in trouble. they have leapt upon it and made hay. but i really believe it's politically motivated. this dates back into the previous government. labor hasn't come out of it so well itself. we've seen evidence of gordon brown, his wife would have pajama parties with rupert murdoch executives. tony blair is we now learned secret godfather to run of rupert murdoch's children. all politicians have come out of this pretty badly, the conservatives worse because they're currently in charge. host: and the news corps empire, it is an empire because it is globally, how big is it? guest: well, it's massive. not just in great britain but significant holdings in australia and obviously here in the u.s., there are newspapers as well as the fox broadcast

licenses. here in america it's clearly not the biggest story in the past 50 years. it's a great britain story for the most part. but i do think it's starting, it has crossed the pond a bit. there are some allegations of wrong doing here at home. there are questions about whether peoples' phones have been hacked in the u.s. and also questions about whether the news corps officials have paid bribes to british officials, which would in fact then be a violation of the foreign practices act. and the justice department takes a very dim view of those violations. they are very aggressively stepping up. i think we may well see some action there. host: go back to the financial times this is the headline, murdoches facing risk around the world. which is significant because this began with just a newspaper, news of the world, which is now defunt but has

spread to everything that news corps owns. guest: it has. as melanie said, the payments which seemed trivial yal, journalists paying police and other public officials for information bribery under the law. if u.s. authority cans show either that these payments were made, or that payments were somehow disguised in the accounts and the books, rupert murdoch's patient company could be facing millions of dollars in fines, potentially the executives being stripped of their abilities to run company in america. host: melanie sloan, this from a tweet -- you're probably familiar with the story where they edited his conversation using a negative term using

african-americans and not pulling it in full context. guest: we don't have a -- that is hugely offensive for what nbc did there. they have apologyized for it and i believe the someone was fired. but retaining broadcast licenses, there is a specific federal law that requires people who hold broadcast licenses to be of good character. and one of the things the f.c.c. has considered in the past is whether or not folks who hold licenses have a candor. so much of this inquirery is forcing james murdoch and rupert murdoch to testify before inquireries in great britain, under oath, and the committees that parliament have found they simply lacked candor. that they have not been credible. so basically they're saying they've been lying. if you've been lying in great britain, the f.c.c. standard

doesn't say you've have to have lied in america, you have to have candor overall. so i think if they're lying in great britain and not here at home i think it's a significant problem that the f.c.c. and congress should investigate. host: we touched on this earlier, one viewer saying -- guest: yes, that's exactly right, about the broadcast license. host: next is derek. derrick you with us? try it one more time. go onto lori joining us from missouri. go ahead please. caller: hi. it's kind of weird looking at you and i can see your lips moving -- host: there's a slight delay,

but i love fox news. i think it's the best news because i watched the "ed" show on msnbc and he lies every time he opens his mouth. and rachel murdoch, she's like -- i mean i just don't believe people are allowed to talk on tv. and i think god for fox news every day and i think rupert murdoch is a great person. i'm a republican. my husband works two jobs, we live in a small apartment in the country. and, he works at wal-mart, he makes $14 and something an hour, plus we get medical insurance. i'm telling you, fox news is telling you the truth and everybody else is not. it's the only one that has common sense. host: thank you lori. we'll take your comment and then pose a question from daniel young who says can the penalties

be anything less than stripping of a license. is it all or nothing? guest: no, it's not all or nothing. certainly possible for the f.c.c. to take out lower action and require greater candor. the problem is here the f.c.c. hasn't done an investigation. so far, the chairman of the f.c.c. commission has said flat out that he viewed this as a scandal, a great britain scandal and not an american issue and he has refused to do anything. that's why crew has also, in addition to sending him a letter, we've sent letters to the house and senate commerce committees. commerce committees have jurisdiction over the f.c.c., and we would like them to hold hearings on whether the f.c.c. should be taking further action. and they could hold hearings to discover whether or not the murdoches have candor. host: if there are hearings, jon swain, what could members of congress take away from what you have been following with the inquiry to james murdoch, rupert murdoch, others involved in news

corps. guest: i think what they can take away and achieve is to embarrass the murdoches and the company. when m.p.'s get the bit between the teeth like this and demand documents and emails and candor about who knew what and when, really has to go to the top of the company and we can therefore see what the top executives have been doing and you know, potentially the members of congress can use that to show, in their opinion, these people shouldn't be running a company. host: you're talking about broadcast licenses, one of our views saying -- guest: well, indeed they should. there are lots of questions about the f.c.c. and the law has been changing, and television and cable and the internet have been changing communications in america. so dramatically that our laws clearly aren't keeping up with our changing situation. at this point, the only thing that we can talk about in this case is really the broadcast lie

-- broadcast licenses for fox. host: by the way, we focus on this and other topics. roy is on the phone, wyoming, democrats line. good morning. roy, go ahead. caller: if david cameron, the -- when he gets questioned in the commons over this is upset the british people because there were two instances where he's had exchanges of this year's dennis skinner, the labour m.p. and when skinner in january asked about the inquirery he responded by calling him a dinosaur, skinner a dinosaur since he's like 80 years old. this week, another thing hit the internet that caused a bit of a fire storm. when he told him, when skinner asked about his culture secretary who's involved with the murdoch empire, he told him that he ought to take his old age pension. he wouldn't even answer the

question. is this kind of smart alec kind of comments like that, especially when he attacks old people, do you think that has upset the british people? and one other quick comment -- the lady who called who said that she totally adores fox news. this is one of the problems in our country when we have people like that, millions who think that everything that one network does or one party does is totally right and everything that someone else is wrong. that kind of absolutism is what is really hurting our country from people like her. thank you. host: roy, thanks for the call. i know that the viewer said rachel myrrh docks, of course she meant rachel mad dow, the host of the msnbc program. did you want to tackle that question? guest: i think the caller is right. david cameron allows his temper to flare as we saw in the exchange in the commons that we watched earlier that that can be quite unsightly.

he has this reputation for being someone from a very expensive school, arguably a school bully of the house of common sense and sometimes when he's under pressure like this he lashes out and as the caller said, dennis skinner, one of the oldest m.p.'s, many people would say it was a very fair point and the prime minister responded by attacking his age. it didn't go down very well at all. host: how much influence does james murdoch have in the overall company? guest: he has a huge influence. host: because he tried to down play that in his questioning. guest: he tried to downplay how much, how clearly he had been made aware of what was going on in british newspapers. he was chairman of the british newspaper on the news corporation, he's now stepped down from both those roles. but also the heir to rupert murdoch. and was seen his likely successor of the parent company.

host: more news from this past week, labour party member tom watson and lose miverage, with differing views on the inquirery to news corps, the merger with b sky b and the phone hacking. >> we find they carried out an extensionive cover-up of its rampant law breaking. its most senior executives repeatedly misled parliament and the two men at the top, rupert and james murdoch, who were in charge of the company, must now answer for that. in the view of the majority of committee members, rupert murdoch is not fit to run an international company like b sky b. i'm personally disappoint thad some members didn't feel sufficiently convinced, or confident, to hold the most powerful to account. >> and the issue on which no conservative member felt they could support the report itself,

was the line put in the middle of the report that said mr. rupert murdoch is not a fit person to run an international company. we all felt that was wildly outside the scope, was an improper attempt to influence off com and to tread on areas that is not the province of a select committee, and our report was about whether or not the prior committee had been misled. host: and so jon swaine based on that, the line clearly drawn. guest: indeed, the labour culture have won a very good victory. they boxed in the conservatives into disagreeing with this line that rupert murdoch was not a fit person to run a global media company. that paints the conservatives and david cameron, the prime minister, as the party of rupert murdoch. and for as long as this scandal continues, that is not a popular position to be in. host: melanie sloan, from one of

our views saying -- guest: it was terrific that rockefeller did in fact send a letter to lord levinson asking for further information. hi asked for information regarding potential bribery of people in great britain. also asked for information about phone hacking. anything that might make an american nexus. he was asking for that information. hopefully that information will come and they'll be holding hearings. so far we haven't seen a great willingness, certainly the house run by a republican majority is unlikely to hold any kind of hearings. they generally are very close with fox news. and in some ways i think we might be seeing the same kind of problems that we have in great britain, although not perhaps to the same extent that american public officials are in fact

very closely tied with rupert murdoch and fox executives, roger else, the head of fox has had a long history with republicans. i think we may see this closeness making american politicians hesitant to take this on. host: let me get your reaction to both of you this is a story, the man to see, g.o.p.-ers flock to ale's fox office. often to fill their campaign office with coifers cash. the draw to ailes office in the middle of manhattan was laid there when house speaker john boehner met with him for a chat on the same day boehner met with ailes network and said they had a 1-3 chance of losing control of the chamber. it helped shift the outlook of the 2012 elections, spawning

days of news coverage about republican chances of keeping the house. boehner is hardly alone in washington and new york. senate republican mcdonalds connell regularly speaks with the 71-year-old roger ailes, of course who worked in the first bush campaign back in 1988. this story this morning front page. guest: yes, i think this is exactly the kind of things that could in fact embarrass the public officials should this scandal become like the scandal in great britain where it has been revealed the close relationship between british officials and news corps executives, the british public is outraged by the close relationship. it has definitely influenced british politics at this time. certainly i could see how such a situation could again happen in america. if it turns out that there was phone hacking of american citizens, and there has been bribery by newscorps officials, i think those kind of actions would be very embarrassing to

john boehner and other high level officials who have been courting fox executives. host: let me put another issue on the table from "new york times." british's biggest satellite company distancing itself from rupert murdoch. he is not the outright owner and apparently never will based upon what happened. guest: well quite. he wanted to be, he wanted to buy up the remaining 61% of the company. he had to abandon it during the height of the scandal last year. the share holders who aren't related to rupert murdoch are now hoping to distance themselves even more. host: and do you want all local fox affiliates to be taken off the air or transfer ownership to someone else? guest: i think ownership needs to be transferred to someone else. under f.c.c. rules they can consider an applicants past conduct as a guide to how they are likely to operate a

broadcast station in the future. they look at this whether there's been a president earn and i think that's what we've been learning, a pattern of information. we're not talking about a couple of isolated incidents. misconduct that dates back at least seven years. it is that kind of issue that i really think the f.c.c. and american politicians need to look at. american officials passed laws at one point saying that in order to retain broadcast licenses, you needed to be open and honest. and certainly those are problems that we're seeing with the murdoches in great britain. and so american officials have a responsibility in fact to consider that. in looking at these broadcast licenses here at home. host: cal is on the phone, republican line with jon swanee and melanie sloan here in our studios. good morning, cal. caller: good morning steve, you look awful dapper today. i like the way you dress, buddy. i think you guys are a bunch a big liberals who hate fox because fox actually tells the truth. if you guys could do anything you could to try to find a way to get fox off the tv so that

cbs, nbc, and abc could tell their lies like they've always done. let me tell you this too, don't think one minute that these two other broadcasters companies don't actually contribute money to big time liberals. you guys want to make this a socialist country, to a communist country and that guy from great britain is probably part of the labour party, a socialist party anyways. so this lady you have on, this is a witch hunt. people are laughing at you. at the same time too, if you try to do something to get obama re-elected. i think that's a real crying shame. we need fox and i think fox tells the truth. host: hall, thanks for the call. melanie sloan, is it a witch hunt. guest: i don't think it's a witch hunt. i think the evidence is overwhelming. misconduct by rupert murdoch and his son james murdoch. it is incredible the allegations that have come out in great britain. and it just remains to be seen how big a scandal this will be here in america.

as i said, if there was phone hacking here at home and there have been allegations there was, this will be a major scandal here in the u.s. host: if you took the murdoch name out and for example it's disney which owns abc or it's general electric or other american companies, would you go after those companies and those licenses as well? guest: absolutely, this is not a partisan witch hunt, this is about somebody doing something wrong. and that's what my organizations focuses on, ethics and responsibility, the kind of behavior we're talking about here in great britain and potentially here in america violates all moral codes. host: melanie sloan who is with crew and john swaine with the "daily telegraph" and john is on the phone from massachusetts. good morning, thanks for waiting. caller: melanie and john, keep going at it. don't stop it. i think this has gone even further than that. we lost our freedom because of this, ok? we got media that during the

time that we were attacked, bush's uncle was producer of fox news, ok? we will ride into war. that's why everybody is losing their freedoms. now we have the patriot act. in england, everybody's losing their rights over there. i think because bush is related to the queen for some reason, during the time we were live into war this this country, bush's uncle was producer of fox news. i think there should be an investigation because we went to war over a lie. i want your comments, thank you very much. guest: i would just say this is not a witch hunt of fox news or rupert murdoch. my newspaper generally takes --

has supported rupert murdoch in the past. it would be remiss for any journalist not to pursue this case. host: let's take the criticism head-on from our twitter page, calling this the worst segment ever. how was british tabloid behavior relevant to america's problems? guest: this is not merely a question of british tabloids. rupert murdoch is an american citizen. his company is based in the united states news corp. is a massive company. this is an american business with american laws. top executives of any corporation need to be held responsible for their conduct. guest: absolutely. i could understand why the actions of some tabloid

journalists in britain might not seem relevant to americans, but news corp. is a huge american company, and if it does not have its house in order, americans should be interested. host: jon swaine, the washington correspondent for "the daily telegraph" and melanie sloan, from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. thank you for your time. when we come back, we will talk about an issue that if you have a college-age student you are dealing with. what is the market like, and their students to far into debt based on salaries they will receive? we'll be talking to peter morici, and later, james could failed to talk about the president's counter strategy, -- james kitfield, to talk about

the president's counterterrorism strategy. back in a moment. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> sunday, on "q&a" -- >> i want each book to examine political power in america. this is a kind of political power -- saying what a president can do in a time of great crisis, what does he do to get legislation move in, to take command? that is a way of examining power in a time of crisis. i said i want to do this in full.

i suppose it takes 300 pages. that is why i said let's examine this. >> robert caro on the multi- volume biography of lyndon johnson. look for our second hour of conversation sunday, may 20. between 1971 and 1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things, hold on the big one. i have done this so often. did not give them the big one. >> every saturday, hear more of the nixon tapes including discussions with future presidents, saturdays at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this week, hear conversations with the gerald ford, ronald reagan, and george w. bush.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back peter morici, an economics professor at the university of maryland, and has written a number of pieces recently on the debt college students ago when they graduate. let's talk about those who graduate. on average, what will those students owe? >> it could range up to six figures. if you go to a liberal arts college, and your family has decent gains, but not enough to qualify for substantial financial aid, you can get close to six figures. graduates are not earning enough money to reasonably service their loans in many majors. there is a great span across

which graduates earn money. some might only earned $25,000 a year. it is very difficult to service alone on that, pay rent, get an automobile, and so forth. host: let's look at the figures. student loan debt is up 25% of the last decade. guest: absolutely. more than 15% are paying back student loans at age 50. they should have long ago and retired. we have folks found by collection agencies in their 80's. student loans are not discharge of oil, like other debts in bankruptcy. host: you are at a public institution. how is the university of maryland looking compared to private institutions in terms of

overall cost? guest: i did not no the fair comparison is new york university and the university of maryland, although we are intense rivals for students. those universities have very large endowments, and the tuition is heavily discounted. their students, like ours, can look forward to substantial earning potential. business school graduates in my institution are in good shape, but the folks and go to these small, liberal arts colleges, where there is not a large endowment, they can rack up heavy debt, and they did not get a major that leads to something substantial on the other end. if there is not as much financial aid and earning capacity is much lower. you can go to a small liberal arts college in virginia, western maryland, and you can

rack up a sizable debt if you are wanting to be a reporter, but you will not end up at "the wall street journal." you will and the that a small newspaper, and you might make $25,000 a year, if you're lucky, and if you survive. those folks can not service their debts. a lot of college graduates are doing things like selling cell phone. they tend to be folks that had a degree in psychology, or something of that nature. host: our c-span bus is in north carolina. will be talking to a community college students as they pose questions to professor peter morici. as you meet with students, and they're trying to think about a profession, something they want to do, but also make an income, what would you tell the

individual's tax guest: often, the more difficult -- individual? guest: often, the more difficult path is the better path. if you are good with the language, everybody wants to do what you do, and but i do, be on tv, but there are good career paths on the other side of the cameras. both the university of maryland and my home institution offered very good technical training in those areas. one of my producers when i am on a rival network, one of my technical guys, studied in the communications department, but steady to be on the other side of the camera. there are a lot of interesting technical things to do. in community colleges, there are significant opportunities that do not cost as much money. it is not as glamorous as being an attorney, but it can give you a substantial job, a reasonable

lifestyle, and so forth. host: one contrast, and you pointed this out, someone that graduates in petroleum engineering could earn $100,000 a year, if you have a degree in psychology, you could get a job in $25,000 to $30,000. guest: exactly. what good is a degree in psychology or sociology without additional training? folks and up in something where you really do not need an edge in -- college education to do the job. 25, 50 years ago, and players did not require it. today, they are requiring a couple of years of college, simply because they can get something like -- someone like that. selling and cell phone, being a reporter in a small time newspaper, a high-school education is plenty for that. a lot of graduates end up in

those jobs, but they do not earn enough money to service loans. the president wants more college graduates. i think that is wrong. we need more graduates with specialized skills, but we probably do not need as many as we have right now, and we are burdening people with too much debt, and frankly, hurting people in my classroom that do not want to be there. host: we look forward to a conversation with you. our phone lines are open. join the conversation on twitter, or facebook, or send us an e-mail. we will be in north carolina for the next five-to-seven days. a student is joining us with a question for peter murray see. -- peter morici. >> mr. morici, i was wondering if you felt as an educator that

making the entire focus of education some kind of remuneration, does that not detract from having students involved in fields of signs that have more exports of, and, you know -- the thing that detracts from america in the long run due to the absence of that kind of drive that exists with the idea of learning for learning is sick? guest: learning for learning's stake is important, but can we afford to have half the population to that, i do not think so. there is a balance to be struck. a lot of liberal arts institutions askew two notions, but they can do things at less cost, and that they should have a vocational contention. students need to live a life. that is what you're talking about what general education,

and i also need to earn a living. it is becoming apparent that many college graduates cannot earn a living that is commensurate with the cost of their education as computed by the debt that they have. we have to have a balance here. host: this from our twitter page -- guest: it certainly would be helpful. business schools do that effectively. most institutions do have not working programs. you can not change the fundamental calculus. if you think of the kind of jobs we associate in our minds, our dreams, the parents aspirations for a college graduate and the kind of pay they have, and the number of graduates, there just are not enough of those jobs to go around. so, all the not working in the world -- if you have to many

students services, it cancels out. one of the problems we have in higher education is if we just stuck to teaching courses, and not providing some any student services, which we used to compete for students, the cost of education would be lower. host: there is good debt and bad debt, and one of our viewers says american college students with loans, if they did not sit college seats, who would fill them? -- fill those seats, who would fill them? guest: maybe we need to have less seats. you could count on a high-school graduate in 1950 to be able to write a decent and sit, have some skills in mathematics, which would equip them -- decent as say, have some skills in mathematics, which would equip them for a job.

in the 1960's, a sense emerged that high schools were not doing their jobs, and test scores indicated that. employers started looking a couple of years of college as a proxy. the reality is the in order to get through a couple of years of college successfully, you have to have a good high school education, and if you did not, the colleges the lot of remedial work. this goes back to pay-12 reform. everybody gets phonics until it comes out of their ears, and the some very basic work in english and so forth, but there is not enough done about creating the personality and providing some level of liberal education at the high-school level that was once the case. host: peter morici has authored or kohl offered 18 books. he now teaches at the university of maryland.

al, an albany new york. -- albany, new york. caller: good morning. i agree with almost everything you are saying. i am the father of a son who recently graduated from oswego, and wants to be a teacher. now, he says the job market is really pathetic in the northeast, new york especially for teachers, and he will go back for his master's at oswego. fortunately, for him, his mother and i helped him pay for his education, so he only came out with 20 two hundred dollars worth of debt so far. -- $2,200 worth of debt so far. the masters program is on his dime. i will be 64 this year.

i work with my hands for a major to indications company. i still climb telephone calls and do a lot of -- telecommunications company. i still climb telephone poles and do a lot of grunt work, but unfortunately we have this opportunity -- this feeling that if you want to work with your hands you are some kind of dumb- dumb. you are looked on as being not quite there, you know? that is part of the problem. there is no vocational courses in the high school so these kids get dirty. i also believe that -- i put a lot of communications lines in at the universities, and i noticed this, there are a lot of foreign students here. they are paid for by the

government. those colleges want those kids. conversely, i noticed that a lot of the board of trustees, the president and so on, they are million-dollar bonus babies, and that is also contended in to the cost. host: thank you for the call. by the way, do you know the tuition for the system? guest: i think that is an all-in number, not to wish in. -- not to wish and. i did not think it 23rd -- $20,000 or $30,000 at oswego. my elder brother is a graduate of oswego and a shop teacher in suburban detroit these days. i know the places you speak of well. one of the mistakes college graduates are speaking -- are

doing right now, is there going to graduate school because they cannot find a job, and got might be intelligent it and that might be intelligent if you are getting the right kind of degree, but there are many degrees that take your money, talk about broad opportunities, and name graduates that have done well, but the odds of finding one of those jobs is not particularly high. if you're getting a master's in education, in the state of new york is required for permanent registration, your student would not have to go to class at night, but you run into perverse incentives. my wife has a master's degree from the university of albany, and we discovered her master's degree was a liability because

the schools wanted cheaper bachelor degrees. as for for instance, that as a subject for another day. -- foreign students, that is a subject for another day. colleges and universities that receive subsidies get them on the basis of how many students did in roe, and the legislature does not ask where they come from. -- they roll, and the legislature does not ask where they come from. we have to be careful about clamping down too much on it meeting for instance. many of them are very bright, and they contribute to our society, and are willing to do things american children are not because american children have it so good. it is hard to get young people interested in studying engineering. engineering colleges have a lot of for instance, and the reality is many of them stay. it is a complex puzzle. that is another story, another

discussion. host: a quick follow-up from mary -- guest: i did not think we should regulate higher education from the point of view of the number of diplomas that are granted, but a law degree should be easier to get, not as hard as it is, but rather we need to start educating parents and students about the prospect of earning the kind of money they will need to learn to work off their debt. they put more pressure on colleges and universities to lower their costs. one of the reasons students are in so much debt are because universities are run a little bit like general motors was. host: there is also this from jim .

guest: let me give you a tangible example. for years, we had something called mr. biddable education, a junior management program. those programs, because of the standards of learning movement, have been decimated. stevens did not having a few electives to take them. -- students do not have enough elective to take them. instead, stevens ticket general program -- students take a general program. i do not know that you need it? first-degree to be an assistant manager -- you need a bachelor's degree to be an assistant manager at walmart. in new york city, i was familiar with the rag trade, and they were ordinary high school graduates, but backers agreed to

sell dresses. not to denigrate that, -- a bachelor's degree to sell dresses. not to denigrate that, but that is absurd. host: we are joined by another student in north carolina. lynn. >> good morning. we have 12.8 million people unemployed as of february, and only 3 million jobs available, which is four workers essentially looking for every job. in the environment we have now, with students with interdisciplinary educations, have a better chance to evolve in a changing environment? would also be beneficial for us to have people who have critical thinking skills that a good liberal arts education is

founded on, so that we have some innovative thinkers out there solving problems like global climate change, food and water shortages, or even energy prices eased in the future? guest: things of that nature are going to be solved with highly technical degrees, not with folks in french literature. it is important that people have critical thinking skills and flexibility, so as the job market changes they can acquire new skills on their own. that is what most of us do. today, with the access to information we have, it is increasingly easy to do that. it is a matter of having a balance. a person with a degree in engineering should not spend four years studying engineering, but in europe, colleges much more specialized because they do a better job of been parting

things like critical thinking skills at the high-school level. an enormous amount of resources are going into schools to reduce the dropout rate. the sources of the high dropout rate are not in the schools, but the communities and homes these children come from. at the same time, by putting so much emphasis on that, we are forgetting to do what we really need to do, and what has been lacking in american high schools for 35 or 40 years. a first big step in a high- school chapter -- high school career was reading, and learning to write a really good essay. in 1976, i had to write two solid essays that were

grammatically correct. i did not know how much of that we need -- we do in america. we did that, we would not need do in the first to the ball years of college which should be done in high school. host: -- the first two years of college what should have been done in high school. host: what do you think of the free online classes? guest: there is no cost. you'd do it online, but i am not sure you get the same education. i think universities have failed to adequately is the revelation in communications that has been provided by the computer. there is enormous resistance on the part of faculty because it is like automation reducing the need. npr did a piece just yesterday or the day before on liberal

arts colleges, and they were expanding their benefits and so forth, and these are the selective, well-endowed, expensive, where you discuss a book in a class of 12 people, and there is really no way to increase productivity. that is nonsense. you might not be able to have a senior seminar, an 18th-century french novel over the internet, but there are a lot things you can do over the internet and with computers that have not been done. another part is universities can be quite exploited. you have situations where a professor who is good in front of a camera will be asked to do a course, and the university is willing to give him an additional two thousand dollars to do the course. you would have to be out of your mind to go along with a contract like that. universities and decide that because you teach get an

institution -- universities the side that even though you teach an institution, you can not use your image. you require their permission. they're blocking competition, innovation change, and cost- lowering process is. universities are as culpable as employers that require too much education. universities require too much people to impart an education. those reforms are difficult. host: a comment from another viewer. jenny is on the phone from arizona. good morning. caller: professor morici must be tendered, because he might be talking himself of of a job. he is making so many good points. deep thought that me point out something. what you are seeing -- guest:

let me point out something. we should have tenure because peter morici would not be possible without it. caller: i think people need to start thinking more critically about their education choices. in high school, you can take college credit courses for free. i encourage my nieces and nephews to do that. when we see in arizona is so many children are home-schooled , and i am concerned that parents do vets to get around immunization and things like that, -- do that to get around things like immunization, and i do not know how they will for to go to college, but the student loan crisis is almost like the mortgage crisis because you're giving loans to people that are not employed, and taking a degree that does not necessarily translate into a

profession, and they are not able to pay them back. when they are unemployed, they are able to get a deferment. do you see what i and saying? there is a built-in incentive not to work. guest: you raise some important points. the basic idea behind student loans in the beginning was did not have a lot of college graduates. there were student loans available when i went to school. they started giving around student loans around 1960. at that time, less than half of the working force had a high- school diploma. there were very few college graduates. if you have a diploma of any kind, you were guaranteed a pretty good job unless you were a difficult person to live with. the idea was you loan somebody some money, you greatly improved

their value in the marketplace, but they would be able to pay off the loan because they got a better job. that evacuate -- evaporated because you treated some of the college graduates. a lot of people do not have a good business plan. they borrow more than the potential earning power of the deployment date received. it is not just that all the, as are the same. while it is possible to the indigent after picking a degree in french literature -- and should not pick on french literature -- art history, it is more likely to be indigent if you get a degree in art history from a small liberal arts college, yet people might borrow more money to go to one of those places. as for why we have so few people who want to study engineering in america, i blame some of that on the high schools. when i grew up, i read the song

of hiawatha, iroquois culture, and about abuses which my grandmother lived through, but i also read and wrote about carnegie, thomas edison, the wright brothers, and as a consequence, we developed an interest in the industry, business, and engineering. today, the kids read my angelou, and get a steady diet of liberal theology and they want to study social history instead of interesting and lucrative disciplines. host: we are in aspen, north carolina. -- -bern, north carolina. we will be traveling to the state. -- a student from-go community college has a question.

-- asheville community college has a question. caller: i want to ask a question that goes to before students go off to college. in your recent article, it seems like you feel like high-school students are not properly prepared to enter college. speaking as an early college student, while completing an associate's degree in high school, i want to guess what economic device would you give administrators and legislators as they try to improve the quality of education while having to work with budget cuts to teacher salaries as well as education as a whole? guest: one of the things we have experienced is education has become the stepchild to health care in america. over successive budget cycles, and aid to higher education,

including community colleges, has been cut. when good times return, budgets are increased, but not to the level they were before. as a consequence, colleges, universities, and community colleges, have cut the more technical programs. they have limited the number of seats. students cannot get into nursing programs, for example, where there is a decent living on the other side, and they are ushered into liberal arts, which is better than no education at all in the eyes of the students. one of the reasons this has gone on is because medicaid has taken a growing share of state budgets. that is even as states have looked to increase tax income. a great deal of education reform has been focused on basic skills, and adding more resources for basic skills.

i challenge administrators of k- 12 question -- to the following question -- why were we beat -- why were we able to educate kids in 1950, but that no longer seems to be possible? it is not a matter of resources. one of the things we need to do in k-12 is start to bring back things like this to give education, and one of the things the states can do is a distributor of education, and one of the things the states can do is have an employer counselor to place people, as an example. there are jobs at the state level but did not require a college education. in my university, these middle level administrative jobs, you

find someone with a master's degree, and they are scheduling, and with some training, someone with less education might be able to do that. i will hear about that when i go back. if the high schools did their job, and there was a good test, we could do that. we are not only paying too much for education, we are probably paying for too much education in america. host: how would you respond to indiana jenkins who says -- guest: you have to figure out what you can do well and find something where there is a job at the end of the pipeline. you want to get a good liberal education. going through life without a decent little education is not as satisfying.

i have to tell you i've got more pleasure and satisfaction out of my liberal education than a technical knowledge of economics, however you want to take a field where there will be a payoff. having gone to a community college, it is not likely you will go to the ivy league. if you will not get an english degree and end up as an analyst on wall street. they will not even interview. if you go to a state college, a small liberal arts college, you want to go somewhere where it is practical, and there is a need within your region. host: kimberly his next. she is one of the students in asheville, north carolina. >> good morning. many students now entering college are coming in older, or as non-traditional students, and

have had to retrain to compete for jobs because of the recession. many of us have children, and we have adult parents that are aging and in need of care, and borrowing money from them is not a reality. what is a real financial solution that you would recommend for nontraditional students like me? host: kimberly, tell us your story. why did you decide to go back to community college? >> i went to a small, private christian school, and i love it there. i got really sick, and took out student loans, worked five jobs, when 317 semester hours, had model, and nearly died -- mono and nearly died.

i missed some much school. i had to go straight in the workforce. i became a waitress. in that aspect, i wound up with a family and i had a son with special needs that kept me out of work. in pours simply do not want to put up with things like that. -- employers simply do not want to put up with things like that. now i have a stable home life, my son is doing better, and i want to go back to school, as i want to be able to provide for my family and said a good example but you're never too old, no matter what life throws it you, you are able to compete regardless of what economics or the environment throws at you. guest: well, he might not like my answer, because you might aspire to have a bachelor's degree, most people do, and that

is a good thing, but in terms of an economical route for someone in your circumstances, a lot of community colleges offer short programs and things that are quite practical, and that might give you a quicker rate to something that offers a better job and more open promise for your family. with that in hand, and this is a long-term plan, he might go to school at night at a state- sponsored university so your tuition is not that high, and get it? first degree just for your own satisfaction. the important -- and get -- as high of tuition, and get a bachelor's degree just for your satisfaction. interview the university vigorously. caller: good morning. let's get to the meat and potatoes. the issue is dollars and cents. a-64.

i'm relatively well educated, and i think the higher education facilities are bleeding of our students. let's give an analogy. let's say someone wants to become a nuclear physicist, for lack of better professions, why do we deal with things like ridiculous courses like art appreciation, british literature, so on and so forth? i was one credits short and -- credit short, and i ended up taking archery. it cost me a pretty penalty -- penney. over 10 yearsl with a well-educated lady who had her ph.d. from harvard, and leased to say, it was entertaining, but i think the process, if it fine-tuned itself, they could chop

thousands of dollars off of the to wish and expense. host: thank you for the call, from fort lauderdale. guest: in the initial position many people have, it is often the ability to do with specific job. if you have a technical aplomb month he will get a better specific job because of the scare said it -- sphere technical aplomb of, you will get a better specific job. if you move up into supervisory capacities, and more broadly into the company, having a broader view of the world is very helpful. if i need a lot of senior executives who never become presidents and ceo's off because they have a silent picture of the world. if they do not know much more than refining copper, running a supply chain for automobiles, if producing a nice column in a newspaper, as opposed to setting up an entire newspaper and

making it marketable. that is where a good liberal arts education comes in, but we are taking too long to get it appeared we are wasting the second two years of high school. we are not giving students the kind of general education they need there so they can become more specialized more rapidly when they get to college. if it used to be you could go to law school your senior year of college, so instead of seven years of tuition it was six. it's hard to do that now. medical schools will not do that at all. we should be compressing education, demanding more of students and i did not meet demand in the way we are now. students have to be -- and i do not need demanding the way we are now. students have to do community services. there is a lot of wasting energy in the system, and i tried to cut down the curriculum and

compress it, it is 8 -- and you try to cut down the curriculum and compress it, it is the political process. departments are a good bet lobbying for departments that have less meaning and purpose -- departments are good at lobbying for apartments that have less meaning and purpose. host: this tout -- tweet. guest: stevens the universities have students where they want them. -- universities have students where they want them. you have to go to college nowadays, and they are using their market power to their advantage. a culture has developed in american universities that is similar to the culture that existed among the detroit 3, that somehow it is impossible to cut costs, and universities are such a special place that they should not be subjected to the

ordinary restraints frankly, universities are run for the faculty. the faculty likes to spend a lot of time doing research, and not a lot of time teaching, and this filter down to basic colleges where professors -- that has filtered down to basic colleges where professors do more research. i cannot tell you how many times we have redesigned the first year curriculum at every institution i am at, when the reality is we did not need to do it, but we were filling up our time. host: professor peter morici, an economics professor at the university of maryland, the author of 18 books, thank you for being with us. coming up, we will turn our attention to national security and counterterrorism. right now, we want to welcome michael downing, the president and ceo of tout.

we will learn more about them as c-span partners with tout. michael downing, thank you for being with us. what is tout, and what you do? guest: is a social media technologies allows anyone to connect and engage from their smart phone and basically create these 15-second short the videos in which they connect with people around the world. host: how did this come about? guest: we created the technology about one year ago. it originally spun out of the stanford research institute, and the original technology and where it came from was actually part of the same kind of group that created the siri technology

were people are able to talk to their iphone and communicate with each other, we came out of that same focus. host: we are quite familiar with what twitter is able to do, and some are calling this a video version. would you agree? guest: a lot of people describe us as a video twitter, and that is a pretty good description. we are basically talking about people beginning to give each other of dates and communicate with each other with these short video messages. is not a bad description or way to understand how would works. host: what is different between tout and youtube? guest: the biggest difference, and where we see a lot of people using tout has to do with this concept of real time.

as we use the web, and get into the social media experience, the concept of things happening, and getting updated on your smartphone as they happen is a pretty dominant force. so, the way that tout as people create these updates and communicate, it is really all about your smartphone and the concept of real time, and knowing when people communicate, when people send a message. for example, if someone from c- span or some other kind of media organization that creates an update and has a story or breaking news, or whatever it might be, you are notified on your smartphone that that is happening, and you can see that as it happens. host: what is the business model? where do you take this? guest: for us, we look this as the next generation of how

people are communicating and connecting. like any kind of new communication medium we think that eventually brands, advertisers, and people in that space will want to be a part of how we communicate with folks. today, we are just trying to build our critical mass. we have had 23 million people use tout in the first 12 months, which is great, and we're continuing to build that days and get people using the technology. we want to create a relationship with those seem like a new medium for how people are getting information, and be able to sell advertising. host: we are talking to michael downing, founder, president and ceo of tout. where does the name come from? guest: it is a funny story. tout is a word in the english

idioms you do not hear that often, but to tout means to promote, bragg, or get it out there, and it could not work better for us when you think about the social media world and people wanting to get their point out there, update their friends, let them know what they're up to. it has worked out very well. hitchcock's stay with us. this video -- host: stay with us. this video message is 15 seconds or less and part of our coverage in carolina. [video clip] >> c-span wants you to visit our bus. come out and say hello. host: that is an example of how it works. how is it going for you? guest: it is going great.

tout has been growing by leaps and bounds. month-on-month, we've grown anywhere from 25%-to-30% since we launched one year ago. it is going great. new people are signing up daily. every major media company is using it as a way to connect with their audience. so, we are happy with progress so far. host: finally, are the candidates using this? guest: that is the interesting thing. we have looked this is a compelling and powerful way for people to connect and voice their opinion. our timing happened to be perfect with a presidential race going on, so we have seen mitt romney and some of the other candidates using tout, and we expect tout to be an important tool in the social media world that will be used going forward.

host: if you want to get more information, you can log onto tout.com. michael downing, president and ceo of tout, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: c-span will travel around colleges and universities in north carolina. we will feature more programming. check of all of our programming information on our website, c- span.org. coming up, james kitfield will join us to talk about, terrorism strategies, but up next, the latest on c-span radial. -- radio. >> on employment numbers show the number of people seeking the benefit last week fell by the most in three months.

the labor department says weekly aid applications fell to -- fell 27,000 last week. the government releases a report for april jobs tomorrow. meanwhile, productivity for workers fell during the first three months and an annual rate of 0.5%, the biggest drop in a year. it had increased at an annual rate of 1.2% in the first quarter. wall street is reacting positively. dow futures are up about 10 points. an update on the blind chinese dissident that escaped from house arrest last week. in an interview, chen guangcheng says he has been abandoned by american officials said a chinese hospital and is begging to leave the country on hillary clinton's airplane. we will hear more on this when the congressional committee on china needs to hear more on the case. you can watch it on c-span 2.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on "book tv" document in the war against al qaeda in "hunting in the shadows." also, here questions and comments for tom brokaw sunday, noon eastern. "book tv" every weekend on c- span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want -- host: we want to welcome back james kitfield. let's begin with your peace. part of' have become who we are. that is a piece for "the national journal." what did you learn?

guest: presidential elections are a good time to take a look of where you have come in the last four years, and i was looking to do some stories on the drone program, and thinking this is a powerful tool for killing people, and it is not checked. i looked at the 2008 election when civil liberties were a big issue, closing guantanamo bay, it said iraq, and we are in a different place now than most people anticipated. guantanamo bay is still open, and congress keeps passing bill after bill that will insure that it stays open and definitely, most recently with the act that could be read to let the military and kerrigan american citizens. we had a republican primary where candidates were touting water boarding and enhanced

interrogation as something they would bring back. we have not turned the page. we were talking about ending lessant a swiss -- warrant wiretapping, where as a candidate, president obama has talked about ending that, and now he has supported it. he has also talked about ending as a judge and executioner against american citizens. it seems like we are in a different place than a lot of people would have anticipated when civil liberties, eni end of a season of fear, as president obama said, i'm not sure we have ended it. host: you have been on this program several times on the patriot act discussion and its reauthorization, and there is a

line in your piece that i want you to react to -- "are americans still listening?" guest: i did not think so. i looked at a lot of polls. in every instance, whether it is keeping the guantanamo bay, or allowing tortured in some instances, solid majorities of americans support all of those things. these things are popular. basically, we are told we are in a state of perpetual war with no horizon or end date. i think that has been imbedded in our consciousness, and in wartime citizens have always been willing to give up a certain amount of privacy and civil liberties for security. that is becoming self perpetuating cycle. host: has the president kept his promises? guest: i think yes tried to keep

some of them. civil libertarians have read more about his rhetoric than he intended to promise. in other words, he has not given up military commissions. he has helped reform them, but he is relying on military commissions, and when they tried to try in new york, and there was a backlash, they learned a lesson there. they are relying on military commissions more than anticipated. he stopped enhanced interrogation techniques by deciding not to investigate previous administrations practices, which is a perfectly rational move. it would have been very divisive, and he was trying to not be did this event that time, but there was no legal precedent to set against intense interrogation techniques. we have not turn the page, but we are waiting for the next president that thinks that is not a forceful -- torture and is a useful tool, and we will be right back there.

he has proven that some of these tools are useful, like the drone program, which has been very successful, and knocking out half of the top 20 al qaeda leaders in the last year alone, and he finds that useful, and it is popular. he has kept some crockett budget promises, but as been a bit of a disappointment -- tap some promises, but it's been a bit of a disappointment to civil libertarians. host: our phone lines are open. you can join the conversation on our twitter page. send us an e-mail. john brennan is the president clinton's senior adviser on these issues. he spoke at the wilson center last monday at the request of the president to talk about drum programs. is available at our website. here is part of what he had to say. [video clip]

>> a different practice. identifying specific members of al qaeda and targeting them with lethal force. the pilots can be hundreds if not thousands of miles away. this is what i want to focus on today. jack goldsmith captured the situation well. "the government needs a way -- especially target is a person or sound. tell us more about the process. the more the government tells us about the eyeballs on the issue,

the more credible will be the exclaims about the accuracy of the determinations and the soundness of its legal ones. all this information can be disclosed in some form. president obama agrees. host: comments of john brennan at the wilson center. why did he do this? guest: a lot of people who pay attention to these things look at the president's stance on this. we have a program of targeted killing in pakistan and somalia and other places. this program is run in the name of the american people. i commend john brennan for giving more of an explanation.

eric holder made an attempt earlier this year. they are trying to listen to people who are critical. it is erosive to government credibility when we know you're doing something that you will not admit to publicly. it is upsurge. -- upsurd. we do need to explain how you get on these lists to be targeted, who is on there. none of that was revealed in his speech. it is in a serious when the government is doing things that everybody knows the it is doing and they are not admitting it publicly. that affects our credibility around the world. i talk to civil libertarians.

you need judicial review to wiretaps somewhat but not to kill them. that is a striking place for this country to be. host: your point about whether the president is carrying on the bush-era policies in place after 9/11. guest: he tried to turn a page as president. he banned interrogation techniques that john mccain said were torture. he tried to close guantanamo. they get credit for that. and found athere much bigger mess.

republicans saying he was weak on counterterrorism. a lot democrats did not want these detainees brought to the united states. they were pretty much on the defensive. they tried to turn a page and in some cases have. they made a rather sweeping claims to presidential power. power in the hands of the executives. who is on that list? i have looked at the program. who is targeted in afghanistan to be put on that list? any power that hones that well usually expands and included afghan drug dealers.

some of their money was ending up in the taliban to support al qaeda. the cia requested more power to target people for suspicious behavior in yemen with drone strikes. their behavior is suspicious. it put this kind of power in the hands of one branch of government, it raises questions about checks and balances. host: our guest is james kitfield. howard is on the line. caller: can you hear me? i am retired from an airline. there's a transponder. all aircraft have transponders.

a mid-air collision between two airplanes because one transponder was not working. the pilot did not know it was not working. it is possible for say a gulfstream to piggy back over the atlantic ocean with a transponder off, follow a commercial aircraft, and when they get 100 miles out, 50 miles out from the coast, to divert the path and carry whatever kind of weapon you want to choose. host: do you want to respond to that? guest: if his point is we're still in danger of a terrorist

attack, he is correct. there was another disturbing plot. the group wanted to use suicide bombings. terroristying that a threat is not real. we are 10 years into the fight. have we reached a balance between security and civil liberties? maybe the balance remains askew. host: a number of questions in a tweet from sasha. guest: that is a good question. they say we are at war with al qaeda. they have to say that because a lot of things they do can only be allowed under international law -- killing people without

prior warning with the drone program. you have to read the miranda rights and get a lawyer. they have adopted the constructs that we are at war and that gives them power to do things they would not be able to do otherwise. we have completed our criminal legal structure with the laws of war. we arrest al qaeda suspects and read them the miranda rights and they are sent to federal court. some we give to the military and they are tried in military commission. some get blown up. americans are confused about what does it comport with american values and principles because we're in this hybrid war. the president claims wartime

powers and that has become embedded in our consciousness. i think previous generations will look at the kinds of things we're doing 10 years after 9/11. host: the question from joe. guest: yes today or two days ago was the anniversary of osama bin laden being killed. he spread and ideology that much of what is wrong -- the typical extremist ideology. everything that is wrong -- many who live and autocratic societies where they don't have a vote or they cannot say what is on their mind. that is the fault of america.

they can free themselves by hitting a market so hard. that is the ideology -- even though osama bin laden is dead, they have suffered from the arab spring. he said only violence will for you and hitting america will for you from the local autocrats. we have seen people protest throughout the middle east. there are pockets where that ideology remains potent and has adherents who are willing to do bin laden's bidding. host: our guest is james kitfield, senior correspondent for "national journal."

he is the author of a number of books. next caller from texas. caller: i think the drone project coming to america is a big issue. americans should wake up to it. it will be a big problem in the future. you just mentioned and more al- awlaki. blowing up marriages in pakistan and schoolyards with these things. they are killing more people around these so-called enemies then the actual enemies. host: thank you. guest: he raises a valid point -- civilians die in these

attacks. people die in their homes in pakistan. the numbers i have seen suggest there are more militant than are killed than innocent bystanders. much more. probably in the hundreds of innocent bystanders that have been killed in these attacks. they say it has to bit high target to justify any collateral damage. it is -- you're going to have casualties. it is coming to america. police departments and the border patrol -- it has not gone unnoticed to them. it is inevitable there will be used by police departments

inside the u.s. host: the debate centers on national security, individual security of americans, and civil liberties. guest: everybody understands after 9/11 the balance will skew to national security. we are much safer now than at 9/11. you would expect a were bouncing. the scales of civil liberties would find a more sustainable equilibrium. we are in this perpetual war. you relook those policies and realized you did something stupid. that has not happened here because this war has not ended.

host: this is the photograph from the peace that james kitfield wrote for "national journal." he broad up the issue of enhanced interrogation on his own. [video clip] >> the other was our enhanced interrogation techniques that we apply to a handful of out al qaeda terrace when we captured them that was controversial. we were very careful to make certain they were legal and we stayed within the limits. but we did develop techniques that worked vital in collecting information from people like college sheikh mohammed -- collied sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

waterboarding. he decided he wanted to cooperate and was a wealth of in valuable information for us in terms of putting together our program to defend the nation against al qaeda. leon panetta said he believed that their ability to get osama bin laden have been influenced by a lot of the intelligence we collected through that means and that led to the location of bin laden when president obama and the seals took him out. host: that was dick cheney last week and no apologies for water boarding. guest: he has been the chief champion of techniques that

everybody else considers torture from the beginning. he was critical of obama. it is legal. it was only considered legal because there was a memo which was released by president obama. we had our own justice department decide it was legal to use any measure against terrorism that fell short of organ failure. no one else thinks that is a valid interpretation. i have not seen many people stand up and back john. waterboarding is mock execution. you think you're going to die.

you think it is torture. argument, i think, best.mly asy at do we torture, do we not? torture might get some information. there are plenty of ways we could get information if we had stuck with techniques that we have used for ever. why did we think that now the threat is such -- we did not torture in world war ii. why now did we become torturous? if you think it is ok to torture people, that is a different definition of america. host: enhance to irrigation techniques but i know, you know

it is still torture. next caller from florida. caller: good morning. i like to ask the gentleman if he heard of the concession from dick cheney that he is making. host: i'm not quite sure what you're talking about. he spoke at a hospital in virginia. caller: but then he made a testimony at the hospital in maryland where he did not have the attention. most of the stuff that happened and 9/11 -- when that breaks open, like you to find that out. it will come to light sooner or

later. sad to say but it has happened. guest: could you repeat that/ ? what did he say? host: we have lost the caller. we will move on. caller: they create more members for them. that's how they thrive. i would like somebody -- causing more fear. reading some reports -- the u.s. or canada backing a dictator like gaddafi in the past and in bed with other dictators.

people protest. i think the -- look at what china is doing in south america, building friendships and doing business. becoming the next superpower. guest: when you have close relationships including significant military assistance to autocratic governments who do not honor the human rights of their own people, there is a blow back to that. that is not to say that is something you would ever do. if you're in a country or rights are denied by a government like egypt that denies your rights but receives a huge amount of aid from the united states, tt

vowed to question the policy if we should support an autocrat. that is why the arab spring is a promising dynamic. there is below back to be had by supporting autocrats around the world. china is making friends with some nasty governments including in the sudan and elsewhere. it will face the same problem we confront. china has more money to throw around right now and they are using that in places where there are oil and natural resources and they are willing to get in bed with anyone as long as they get what they want out of the bargain. china will find there is a downside to that. host: guantanamo remains in

government surveillance more interested than ever before. guest: the surveillance? they hone them to incredible surveillance platforms. at great heights they can recognize people and eavesdrop on communications. they are amazing tools for surveillance. that is to the good. that tool will not remain in american hands for long. we have to think hard about how we use that tool. pretty soon a lot of countries will be flying drones. we better decide what we are willing to put up with from other countries because drone

technology will spread. host: some of the bin laden right thinwritings will be onlie today. guest: he was engaged with affiliate's in somalia, yemen. he was still in with the mundane stuff of resources and recruitment and engage in an argument about whether he should continue these attacks or focus on attacks of the west. the idea that he was reclusive is not true. he had to do anything by ca urrier. there was a month lag time.

there was a video tape and then it will be broadcast. there was lag time. he still had his hand in the game. host: this is from a viewer. have they? guest: yes, they have. you have solid majority of americans supporting that. we have changed. some of that you could argue is inevitable change because we face in a kind of threat. we have changed more than most people do and that is my point -- when a government powers will

trump civil liberties, that is a dangerous concept. it stays askew. i think that is where we are. my hope and the hope of the administration -- the best thing we can do to rebalance is to drill down on the threats so americans feel safer. when they feel safer, they will support a rebalancing. we have changed. the self correcting rebalancing has not happened. host: that's the back to the comments at the wilson center. [video clip] >> we are harnessing intelligence, military, development, economic, financial, law enforcement, homeland security, and the power

of our values, including our commitment to the rule of law. that is why president obama banned the use of enhanced derogations techniques which are not needed to keep our country safe. host: your reaction. guest: i applauded john brennan and the administration for coming out and trying to articulate the reasons behind this. i think that was overdue and it will come development. they are starting to talk about these things in a sober way. this debate was front and center in the 2008 debate. it is hardly mentioned now. the rule of what is the law of warfare and gives executives unchecked power to do many

things, including people around the world. they stopped enhanced interrogation techniques and that was vital. that comported the rule of law. in guantanamo, there is a category of detainees that we think are too dangerous to let go. we do not have the evidence to try them. so we're holding them in definitely. how does that comport to do process? that needs more clarification -- how does that comport to due process? the lot is the law of warfare which gives you a huge amount of leeway.

host: a few more minutes left with our guests, james kitfield. richard is on the phone from virginia. caller: good morning. guest: how are you? caller: i am well. i'm glad you brought the civil liberties. i am ashamed to call myself an american these days. it seems we've brought the war on terror on ourselves. we send troops into countries and we bomb the countries. afghanistan has been fighting for eons and eons. nobody has ever taken afghanistan done. look at what has happened to

every single nation. we occupy their lands and we kill their people, all in the name of security, the war on drugs, the war on terror. our country incarcerates a 20% of the people for simple nonviolent drug offenses. host: thank you for your call. guest: i thought afghanistan -- it would have done what president bush did. president obama has said this -- that was an act of war committed on 9/11 at we responded accordingly. afghanistan -- we started a war in iraq. in iraq.